Talk:Warp coil
Removed I removed: Warp coils are typically composed of cast verterium cortenide surrounding a core of densified tungsten-cobalt-magnesium. (Star Trek: The Next Generation Technical Manual)'' Information is from non-canon source. --Shran 11:01, 9 Aug 2005 (UTC) :nope, the information appeared in -- Kobi - [[ :Kobi|( )]] 12:00, 9 Aug 2005 (UTC) Ah, then that being the case, I shall re-add it with the correct canon reference. :) --Shran 12:02, 9 Aug 2005 (UTC) Question -- First Contact Since I'm too lazy to locate the DVD for the film, I'll ask ya'll. In , Riker considered the warp coil to be the most important of the 22nd century, but in the 2063 scenes of , didn't Barclay bring out a warp coil for Geordi to inspect? That would mean the coils were around in the 21st century, would it not? Or was it a different piece of technology? --From Andoria with Love 18:41, 7 December 2006 (UTC) :I don't have the DVD at all, but I seem to remember it being a plasma coil, although given what we know about Earth style warp drives, the Phoenix had to have had warp coils. --OuroborosCobra talk 18:50, 7 December 2006 (UTC) :Here is a picture of what I remember being a plasma coil. --OuroborosCobra talk 18:50, 7 December 2006 (UTC) ::hmm... Could ''Target (my name for will riker... "Fire at will!") be referring to the modern warp coil? --''6/6'' ''Neural Transceiver'' 19:44, 7 December 2006 (UTC) :Perhaps those of the style developed for the Warp Five program are the direct ancestors of those still used in the 24th century? --OuroborosCobra talk 19:53, 7 December 2006 (UTC) :::The thing in that image from FC was actually a spare part with copper tubing that Reg thought he could use to replace the damaged warp plasma conduit of the Phoenix. So not a warp or a plasma coil, just a tube that the warp plasma flows through. --Pseudohuman 10:01, 31 August 2008 (UTC) PNA-incomplete Missing references: * , , , , * , , , , , * , , , , * , , , * , , , , , --Alan 06:41, 31 August 2008 (UTC) Removed 2 Any particular reason why ((cur) (prev) 15:15, 27 May 2009 DarkHorizon (Talk | contribs) m (2,431 bytes) (Reverted edits by 205.188.116.196 (talk) to last version by DelBeccio-bot) (undo)) removed my adding what Wikipedia has on tungsten, cobalt, and magnesium? There was no reason to remove the external links I included at the bottom of the article. -- 15:50, 27 May 2009 (UTC) :Because the external links are to be used for links relevant to this article, such as an article on warp coils elsewhere. All three elements have articles here, which already link to their corresponding Wikipedia articles. -- Michael Warren | ''Talk'' 15:57, 27 May 2009 (UTC) purely non-related mark but... Ok, according to the texts, warpcoils consists of concentrated tungsten-cobalt-magnesium, encased to crystalline and silicate forms. The outer layer gives me no trouble, but the innards sounds like... well, something similar to the thermite. Tungsten (aka wolfram) is highly concentrated salt, cobalt is highly stable when concentraded nuclear fusion fuel (also used as a heatcoil in wolfram lamps) and magnesium burns very rapidly, and when used in rocket engines, are main fuel incredient on long lasting burn (you got saltic acidic compound, highly volitile burning agent, and highly reactive fuel). Originally also tungsten was studied to be a possible nuclear reactor fuel, and nowdays the scientist are discovering that it might become possible fuel of reactors in the future. So tell me, how does a warpcoil, that generates a stable wormhole, is made of an incredients that hawe to be near plasma induction system, which basicly operates at temperatures over 3 000 celcius, not being a rocket-ride-on-a-dynamite-stick??? --JHawx 12:09, October 15, 2010 (UTC) :I don't know where you are getting your information, but you are basically dead wrong on every claim. :*Tungsten is not a salt, concentrated or otherwise. Tungsten is an element, an atom or a collection of atoms all sharing the same number of protons, 74. A salt is an ionic compound joining cations (positively charged ions) and anions (negatively charged ions) together to form a neutrally charged molecule. You need to have more than one element to make a salt, and those elements need to be ionicaly charged. An example is table salt, or sodium chloride, which has a sodium atom that readily gives up an electron (making it a positively charged cation) and a chlorine atom that readily accepts an electron (making it a negatively charged anion), coming together to form the neutral ionic compound of sodium chloride. That is a salt. Tungsten is an element. It may be possible that tungsten can form a component of a salt, but on its own it is not a salt. :*Cobalt has never been considered for use as a nuclear fuel, let alone nuclear fusion. Quite the opposite, we sometimes use nuclear fission reactions as a neutron source to produce radioactive isotopes of cobalt, such as cobalt 60. Cobalt 60 itself is not used as a nuclear fuel, but as a radiation source for research labs and medical applications. The closest consideration of cobalt I can think of for use as a nuclear "fuel" would be the idea of surrounding a traditional nuclear bomb (fueled by something else, such as plutonium or lithium deuteride) so that the radioactive cobalt 60 can be spread around to create an incredibly "dirty bomb." The cobalt 60 is in no way the fuel for the nuclear reaction, it's just terribly dirty stuff getting thrown over a great distance. It doesn't even make sense to consider cobalt as a nuclear fusion fuel. You want your nuclear fuel to be made up of lighter elements, we use lithium deuteride as a fuel so that we can fuse the deuterium (an isotope of hydrogen, the lightest of all elements). Attempting to fuse nuclei of elements heavier than iron takes more energy than you get out of the reaction. As cobalt is itself heavier than iron, you would have to supply more energy into a nuclear reactor using cobalt as a fuel than you could possibly ever get out of it. Makes no sense. Tungsten suffers from the same problem, it is even heavier than cobalt! I've never heard of either being used as a fission fuel either, there you want far heavier elements such as uranium or plutonium. Cobalt is not used as a heat coil in wolfram lamps, if they used cobalt it would by definition no longer be a wolfram lamp. Wolfram lamps are tungsten, they get their name because tungsten is known as "wolfram" all through Europe because it is extracted from wolframite ore. :*Magnesium does not burn very rapidly, and is not commonly used in rockets. Magnesium may burn very brightly and hot, but it burns for a long time, not rapidly. That's why you are able to use magnesium in crucibles in a science lab, it burns, but slowly. Compare that to something like simple gun powder, that burns very rapidly, which is why you get an explosion like that. Rocket fuels tend to have similar rapidly burning fuels, that is why rockets are often described as "controlled explosions," and why they have to keep feeding massive amounts of fuel into a combustion chamber to maintain exhaust when compared to, say, a car internal combustion engine. Manganese can be used as an element forming compounds in rocket fuel, but that is an entirely different element. I've occasiounally heard of the use of potassium permanganate as an oxidizing agent in rocket fuels. Even this is fairly rare, and it isn't pure manganese anyways. It is bound in a compound with other elements. :*Tungsten-Cobalt-Magnesium sounds nothing like thermite. Thermite is a composition (meaning mixture of more than one element or compound) of a metal powder and a metal oxide compound. In that tungsten-cobalt-magnesium thing, you've got three metals alright, they might even be a mixture, though we don't really know what form it is taking, knowing Star Trek it is more likely to be an alloy. It probably isn't a powder. You do not have any metal oxide compound present of any kind. That would require one of these metals to be bonded with oxygen to form a new compound, oxygen is not described as being present in any way. No metal oxide, no thermite. :*Warp engines do not generate stable wormholes. The only artificial stable wormhole we've seen at all is the Bajoran wormhole, made by some sort of Prophets superpowers or something. Warp engines don't produce wormholes of any kind when they are working correctly. In , the newly refitted Enterprise accidentally generated a wormhole with its warp engines because it had not been properly tested out after its upgrades, the accident nearly destroyed the ship. :*As for what warp engines actually DO, they seem to somehow bend or warp space. How do they do that? We've never really been told, and it probably would work with real tungsten-cobalt-magnesium, otherwise we'd be doing it now. That said, Star Trek had that core encased with a completely fictional compound, verterium cortenide. That can have whatever properties it wants, after all it doesn't really exist. Perhaps it works something like light emitting diodes or piezoelectricity, taking one form of energy (electricity) and converting it into another (photons or mechanical kinetic), only instead producing whatever quantum particle or force that makes warp drive work. As for being exposed to thousands of degrees of temperature, this is another thing that leads me to believe this is an alloy. Magnesium is the only one of those three metals that burns readily, and tungsten is commonly used in superalloys to give them very high temperature tolerances. :In summation, what the hell? --OuroborosCobra talk 19:42, October 15, 2010 (UTC) Ok, just small corrections to my arguements. # Wofram lamps were used previously before halogen lamps were invented, the wolfram was used in the lamps heating wire, because it glowed steadily for long peroid of times. Wolframs mothern name outside of nordics is Tungsten. In its ore form it resambles same consistancy as saltpeter. (on purified casted & packed form, it resambles more of the stonekind form). # Cobalt WAS studied in the 60,s as a possible fuel for nuclear reactors, but found to be more usefull in reactor casing lining. Discovery made by russians. # Currently there are french studies on using compound, enrichened tungsten as a nuclear power source, as it might produce purer fuel with less nuclear waste. # By thermite i ment its actions, not consistency, i ment it would become volitile AS thermite. # And during my fysics& chemistry class, my teacher dropped a magnesium to water, end result was a burnhole in the roof, and really bright flash. This action was very rapid and long sustaining. Magnesium is used in 2 other compounds and end results defer according to theyr rations, 1 being a flashpowder used in early century photography, 1 being smellypowder, 1 being used by farmers on theyr fields. # Now, i did not mention anything about inside of warpcoil being powder, i know they have actual metallic coillike things inside of em, theyr shown pretty regularry on STV. # And as a wormhole, i ment to say warpfield, and theres several schematics on scanners showing warp patterns. on VOY, they actually show the kid changing a mathematics to alter the warpfield form, to alter the possible speed of the ship. This means that if corrected properly, the ship would bend the field from front to back, prepelling the ship itself through space. Well, i dont know that much, but composition of elements is a thing i am interrested in, but so far we got semimetallic elements inside a warp reactor, where conductive metals are combined to nonconductive metals and viotile metals. (i dont even know if metal is correct word in here). Anyways, to me this still sounds little suspicious, and the ending result still sounds more of an magnesite, nitrate, diesel kind of micxture than actual magnetic semiconducter. And this is just my 2 cents on the matter, i dont know how right i am with this. Oh, and dont try to combine manuer with diesel and magnesium, youll just make a mess instead of a bomb (they added a incredient to the manuer so you couldnt made homemade Anisilinin. (but im glad theres some people who are also interrested enough to correct and reply to me ^^ --JHawx 21:20, October 16, 2010 (UTC) ::So, if this is non-related to the article, then take it somewhere like TrekBBS. Talk pages are not for random rambling like this. -- sulfur 21:28, October 16, 2010 (UTC)